I received a note (no warning) in this thread for this comment:
So I want to clarify, both my intention (which I realize doesn’t change much) and how I might better have achieved my intention.
I wanted to point out to the poster that I thought that what he posted was a jerkish reaction, especially for the first post after the OP. I wasn’t thinking about telling him what to do, I was thinking that he ought to think longer before blurting out the first thing that comes into his head. I wasn’t even thinking that his post even rose to the level of mod interest (which is why reporting it didn’t occur to me).
I realize that it didn’t come across that way.
So my clarifying question is, am I allowed to express my own feelings about a post in a situation like that? As long as I am careful not to appear to be giving instructions?
Also not a mod but I would be careful about using language that mirrors forum rules, and “don’t be a jerk” is the first and arguably most important one.
I go along with the above two posts; but I read the thread in question not long after your post and know exactly why you reacted like that - I felt the same way. Completely understandable (and nicely expressed) but I can see why the mods don’t like it. It’s just to easy for something like that to escalate, apart from any other consideration.
It comes too close to attacking the poster and not the post. In my experience something like “that post doesn’t quite fly” may get by if you back it up but insinuating someone is a troll or jerk won’t escape the radar very often.
To be fair, Gatopescado specifically drops his little one liners all over the place and as the first response in the thread it does seem to warrant an actual warning. Is he ever going to get called out from the mods for his unrelenting useless little posts?
Should we start reporting his one line posts? Are the mods not aware of the fact it is most of his posts?
Generally, yes, you are free to express your feelings about a post in MPSIMS as long as you do not appear to be giving instructions.
There are some exceptions, of course. If someone is expressing feelings about the loss of a cat for example, and you hate cats, you probably should not post those particular feelings that you have, as that would come off as both threadshitting and jerkish.
Also, make sure you don’t insult anyone. “I think that is a jerkish response” is probably ok (depending on the circumstances of course), where “I think you’re a jerk” is an insult.
The rule against jokes as a first response only applies to GQ.
This is from the General Questions Rules & FAQs:
This rule is GQ specific, and does not apply to other forums.
Most likely. You may only make accusations of trolling in the Pit.
I’m always a bit puzzled by this literalist interpretation of what it means to insult or to attack the poster rather than the post. I mean, how about “that’s the kind of think a jerk would say”. To me, these are just circumlocutions that mean exactly the same thing as just saying “you’re a jerk”.
It seems to me that if something is to be construed as “attacking the post rather than the poster”, it’s should be a question of whether it addresses the actual content/context of the post in a substantive way, not just rephrasing a personal insult into a superficial form of words that only technically addresses the post.
You called him a jerk, which is attacking the poster, not the post. If you had said, “you know, that post comes off as pretty jerkish”, you would probably have been fine. Or, just report the poster for being a jerk if that’s what you thought – being a jerk is against the rules, and he got a mod note for it.
Rieman, saying “that’s the kind of thing a jerk would say” would be noted as well, in my non-mod opinion. That’s just calling the poster a jerk. However, saying the post itself was jerky is usually OK.
“Riemann, that post had some hurtful things in it and it was kind of jerkish.”
“Riemann, you always post hurtful things and your posts are always jerkish.”
The first statement is commenting on the post you made. The second post is commenting on you; labeling you as a jerk, because it generalizes all of your posting behavior.
Imagine you’re trying to talk to someone in-person and they’re upset, and they say something in anger. If you say to them, “I understand you are angry, please don’t take it out on me” they may calm down or at least leave you alone. If you say to them, “You are such an angry person all the time, don’t lash out at me” then it’s just more likely to escalate because you’re insulting their character rather than acknowledging a transitory emotion.
For that same reason, insulting a person does nothing to foster civility and/or encourage productive communication, which is essential to the successful operation of most of the forums on this board. The one exception being the Pit, of course, where productive communication is not the main goal and people just feel the need to vent and/or dispense with filters.
That post in particular seemed pretty jerkish to me- it was a thread recounting a very emotional experience of seeing someone get hit by a truck. The OP was clearly shaken.
[1] adds some substantive commentary on the content of the specific post, pointing out that it’s hurtful, and therefore falls into the category of attacking the post rather than making a generalization about the poster.
[2] makes explicit an inferred generalization about the poster’s character. And to my mind the following also fall into category [2] of inappropriate generalization about the poster’s character, notwithstanding the superficial form of words in (c):
(a) “You’re a jerk”
(b) “You’re a jerk for saying that”
(c) “That’s a jerkish comment”
Calling a comment “jerkish” isn’t substantive commentary on the content of the post, it’s focusing on the character of the kind of person who would make such a post, and implicitly making just the kind of generalization you’re talking about. Do you really think there should be a line drawn that there is some significant semantic difference between (a) and (b) or between (b) and (c)?
A and B are identical. Explaining why you’re insulting someone doesn’t make it less of an insult. C is different in that you’re attacking the comment.
On the other hand, I’m not entirely sure I’d call a comment explicitly jerkish either, not because I feel I’m violating the rule on insults, but it is too close to junior modding for my comfort, because you’re essentially calling someone out for acting like a jerk. I’d instead report the post.
I’ve explained why I think it’s not, and you haven’t responded to that. Do you really think there’s a significant semantic difference (as opposed to a superficial grammatical difference) between:
You’re a jerk for saying that
and That’s a jerkish comment
If you really think that’s a meaningful line to draw, how about
That’s the comment of a jerk
By your reasoning, if it depends on the technical grammatical structure rather than the underlying meaning, that’s attacking the post.
It wasn’t meant to be a joke. I mean it. I can’t check my email or look for free stuff on craigslist with being bombarded with Mass shootings, Ecological disasters, Insane politics… animal abuse, fires, floods, earthquakes! My point was, “Yeah, there is a world of shit out there, and it’s damn depressing, I tell you”. I’ve seen enough to know I’ve seen too much. Just wanted to clear that up.
I’m well aware. I’m just smart enough to stay away from threads were it’s clear my participation is unwelcome/misunderstood.
To me, it didn’t come across as sympathetic, or understanding, or a commentary on the depressing state of the world today. It read more like a comment on the more gross stuff on the web. Less mass shooting, and more goatse. Less “things i wish didn’t happen” and more “things I wish I hadn’t seen.”
None of which was specifically referenced in the one liner in question, of course. That you intended it to reference things also found on the local or national news broadcasts did not come across in the post.